zaval@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (02/08/90)
To parakatw einai to arthro tou D. Kouvatsou sto sct ths 6 Feb 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 1616 (27 more) in soc.culture.turkish:
From: DK0A%LEHIGH.BITNET@IBM1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU ("Dimitrios Kouvatsos")
Subject: setting the truth straight
Message-ID: <9002060414.AA06219@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 6 Feb 90 04:14:52 GMT
Sender: grossman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Stu Grossman)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 116
X-Unparsable-Date: MON FEB 05, 1990 23.11.39 EST
Ladies and gentlemen,
I have been watching the lively discussion on Greek-Turkish relations
with interest for several days. I'd like to use this opportunity to
set some things straight. First, a few facts:
1/ Several Greeks refer to the last remnants of the Greek population
of Constantinople (Istanbul) as a "Christian" minority, to reciprocate
for the Moslem minority of Western Thrace. This is an error. The Treaty
of Lausanne specifically denotes a GREEK minority in Constantinople ( I
use this name because that was used at the time and even the Turks use
exclusively the name Istanbul in official papers only since the 1930s )
and a MOSLEM ( NOT Turkish ) minority in W. Thrace. The reason is that
almost all Christians in Constantinople (Istanbul) were Greeks while
only half the Moslems of W. Thrace were of Turkish origin. Nowadays,
the moslem population of W. Thrace consists of 55000 of Turkish origin,
35000 Pomacs (non-Turkish slavic tribe) and about 15000 gypsies. They
are all Greek - and European - citizens with all the rights and obli-
gations this property implies, and if someone feels Turkish the door
to mother Turkey is always open.
2/ On the question of the continental shelf, it is an established
principle of the International Law of the Sea that islands DO HAVE
continental shelf, whether Turkey likes it or not. As CK pointed out,
Britain even got oil-rich shelf in the delineation with Norway because
of the tiny Shetland Islands. Therefore Turkey has no rights whatsoever
behind the line of the easternmost Greek islands. If Turkey believed
it stood a chance, it would have settled for International Court juris-
diction as Greece has done. Because Turkey knows that its position in
the Aegean is unlawful, it is trying to bully Greece and to hell with
the international law ( see CK postings for details on this subject ).
3/ As far as territorial waters are concerned, Greece has a perfect
right, according to international law, to territorial waters of 12
miles and it should already have applied it. Turkey's stand to regard
such an act of basic sovereignty rights (Turkey itself has 12 miles of
territorial waters in its north and south coasts) as a "casus belli"
is simply a part of its intimidation campaign. My personal opinion is
that we should declare 12-mile territorial waters according to the law
of the seas and call their bluff. This would not of course mean that
the western Turkish coast would be cut off - there would be rights of
passage such as in Dardanelles straights or the Gibraltar.
4/ On the question of the arming of the eastern Greek islands, please
see CK's answer. I should only add that we got the Dodecanese from the
Italians in 1947 and we have no obligation at all under the 1923 Lau-
sanne treaty.
It is really a very enlightening fact that the 1923 Lausanne treaty
was imposed on us Greeks after a devastating military defeat (for which
our supposed World War I allies - against Germany and Turkey - France
and Italy played such a decisive role by massively helping the Turks
and prohibiting a Greek blockade), and yet it is us Greeks who are
defending this treaty against Turkish expansionism. It is true that
Greece's Great Idea policy was expansionist before 1922 - but it is
equally true that Turkey has been trying to bully Greece since then.
I think that Michael Scordilis's quotations of Turkish officials
that prove Turkish imperialism are quite to the point, and no Turk
dared to answer him. What could they say? They only repeat hypocriti-
cal declarations of friendship, and, as CK said, "it looks like we
are offered abundance of friendship feelings on the condition that
we see Turkey's interests as our own"...
One particular Turkish person, Ms. Akkus, shows a characteristic
attitude. Right after her shallow irony about Turks wanting all the
olive trees of the Aegean and even the California olive groves, there
come Michael's devastating quotes. Now she is hopelessly cornered and
does not want to admit it. And the only thing she finds to say is, if
the Turks want the Greek islands why don't they take them - would it
be that hard?!? She seems an educated and intelligent person and she
surely knows it would be very hard, that a Greek-Turkish war would be
a particularly bloody affair and Turkey is not at all assured of win-
ning. Nonetheless she makes that statement just in order to insult the
Greeks who left her and her fellow Turks without arguments. Now that
is the mentality of an Attila, not of a civilized westerner - while
the same person later states Turkey's ambition to enter the EEC, that
very western and very civilized community. To that, we Greeks would
give the same answer we gave to some other Asian barbarians that
claimed our land and sea 2500 years ago: "Molon lave" - come to get
it - if you dare.
On that particular subject, I'd like to say that Turkey will never,
at least in the forseeable future, be admitted to the EEC. For a quite
simple reason: It is NOT European, not so much in geography but in
culture. If even Turkey can be admitted to the EEC, then why not Paki-
stan! Let's be serious. The EEC is the community of European nations
which share the values of the western civilization, forged in their
national souls by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Turkey has
nothing to do with this tradition of humanism and everything to do
with the inhumanity of the Islamic world. It is true that due to the
long Turkish occupation the Greeks were cut off from the development
of the West. But we are the country where, spiritually, the West was
born - we are the people that gave birth not just to science and phi-
losophy but to the rational, free-thinking mind itself. We were the
most civilized nation on Earth for 3000 years - from Mycenean times
until the 15th century, and those who escaped the barbarians then
arriving played a vital role in starting the Renaissance in Italy.
As Reader's Digest, not a pro-Greek publication, stated (Jan.'88):
"There is something special about Greece: It is very difficult to
imagine our civilization without it". Of course, these past achie-
vements are not an excuse for our current mediocrity - but they are
ample evidence, if it were needed, that we are Western, while the
Turks generally are not.
The fact that I'm writing these lines does not mean that I hate
Turks just for being Turkish. It would perhaps be interesting to say
that I live with two Turkish roommates who are very nice guys and we
are getting along pretty well. We I do hate is the spirit of the
Attila - and to understand it, read for example the Spiegel article
on northern Cyprus. Until Turks abandon their expansionist policies
and turn their energies to developing their country, clashes are
inevitable.
We Greeks and Turks have one common interest - and just this one:
to live as neighbors peacefully. We have no other common interests
as some people say. But nations do not choose their neighbors and
ever since the Turkish tribes moved from central Asia towards the
ancient Greek lands 900-1000 years ago we have had to live as nei-
ghbors. Let us make the most of this unhappy situation and live
peacefully. As neighbors - but not together, since we have nothing
in common. As Valery Giscard d' Estaing recently said, "the eastern
border of Greece is the eastern border of Europe - beyond that, it
is no Europe".
Sincerely,
Dimitris Kouvatsos (dk0a@lehigh.bitnet)
============================================